Why can't creation scientists tell the difference

[McCulloch]

Comparison of Skulls
Jim Foley asks a good question. Creationists, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Why is it that the "Creation Scientists" cannot agree on which skulls belong to apes and which ones belong to humans?
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
(1996) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.

[jcrawford]

Doesn't diversity of opinion denote an open mind?

The biggest problem in dealing with the majority of "freethinkers-atheists-humanists-etc-etc . . ." is their rigid stance on everything.

Now, dinosaurs are birds. When, as a child and student, I was taught they were big lizards.

So, can't argument be engaged without perfidy? Intelligent Design is logical seeing the complexity of our observable world, and especially the unseen world.

It appears from evidence, that Creation Scientists should be the norm. But alas, open-mindedness is not yet allowable to a certain clique at school.

Aw, c'mon, AlAyeti. You've got an open-minded attitude. You don't expect neo-Darwinist liberals to listen to your petty grievances and points of view about human origins from Adam and Eve, do you? Don't you realize that neo-Darwinist race theorists have science on their side while you have nothing but God's word and documented human history on your side of the argument?

Give up. You haven't a snowball's chance in a fiery furnace to survive extinction in a science fiction world created by neo-Darwinist race theorists.

[jcrawford]

It appears from evidence, that Creation Scientists should be the norm. But alas, open-mindedness is not yet allowable to a certain clique at school.

How can you state that real scientists are close-minded? What possible argument do you have?

That's easy. Scientists close their minds to the possibility of any greater intelligence in the universe that their own. Therefore, not only are scientists "close-minded," but they are narrow-minded and bigoted (by definition) as well.

Creation Scientists are a reactionary branch of scientists bent on maintaining their religious belief that the world was created by the God of the Old Testament- they are not searching, probing the depths of the earth for clues about this world we live in, they've already decided on it. How is this open-minded? Open to God? Most scientist are, just not in the lab.

It may be equally theorized and stated that the evolution 'scientists' practice a racist form of science bent on maintaining their racial beliefs in the inherent supremacy of African people (African Eve Migration Theory) who supplanted, replaced and drove into extinction all human races, populations and 'species' who preceded them in evolutionary sequence. What could possibly be more racist than a scenario of human evolution which arose and proceded from a Euro-American test tube and computer program?

Most scientists don't have a problem with doing good science and being religious. God for them is beyond the creation stories of the Old Testament, and God's creation is more to them than what is told in the OT. Close minded? I think not.

As you say, "God for them is beyond the creation stories of the Old Testament, and God's creation is more to them than what is told in the OT." Sounds to me like they have closed their minds to what God says about His creation in the OT and subscribe to some sort of 'new age' god of their own 'scientific' imagination and invention.

[jcrawford]

Failure to correctly identify KNM-ER 1813 as human or ape may rank you as the rankest of amateur paleoanthropoligists.

That's a good point. Now all we need is an authoritative identification and we can sort out the amateurs from the pros. Perhaps the Smithsonian Institute might be a starting point?

The U.S. government's Smithsonian Institute is always a good place to begin and end a discussion of whether some African human fossils were more human than ape-like. KNM-ER 1813, 1805 and Olduvai Hominid 24 are all classified with OH 62 whose cranium and teeth are very similar. The discovery of OH 62 was the first time that post-cranial material had been found in unquestioned association with a Homo habilis skull. (Lubenow)

The problem is that the body of this Homo habilis adult (OH 62) was no larger than the Australopithicine afarensis fossil known as Lucy. As a matter of fact, it was actually smaller than Lucy, just a bit more than 3 feet tall and rather ape-like. (Lubenow)

That's why leading evolutionist Milford Wolpoff says that "if there weren't a Homo hablilis we would have to invent one.

Besides, how do neo-Darwinist race theorists account for the gracile morphology of Homo habilis evolving into the robust morphology of Homo erectus and neanderthalensis before becoming more gracile once again in some Homo sapiens?

Isn't it rather racist of neo-Darwinist theorists to compare, find similarities and equate the first African people with African monkey and ape ancestors? Don't they have anything better to do?

[QED]

Besides, how do neo-Darwinist race theorists account for the gracile morphology of Homo habilis evolving into the robust morphology of Homo erectus and neanderthalensis before becoming more gracile once again in some Homo sapiens?

Were such an explanation warranted, you've already had it explained to on numerous occasions. A gracile morphology in your view is what? Somehow Inferior to a robust morphology? That would not be the view of an evolutionist. It would simply be the better adaptation to it's particular environment. Why do I get the feeling that your point of view comes through the very bias you set out to condemn?

[Cathar1950]

They should wear pink or blue. Oh no that is to tell the difference between boys and girls.
jcrawford wrote:

Besides, how do neo-Darwinist race theorists account for the gracile morphology of Homo habilis evolving into the robust morphology of Homo erectus and neanderthalensis before becoming more gracile once again in some Homo sapiens?

The environment , climate, conditions changed. Life forms adapt. We are life forms. Any adaptions are related to the species both out side and inside.We have parts that are no longer useful and they sometimes stay. Such as the appendix, tail bone, ear muscles. I read a whole list of them some place. I am not against considering all the other groups human well people any way. If they were around today they may have rights. I don't mind expanding the idea of what it is to be a person or human.
If life did not change with nature there would not be much left. Every time there is a mass extinction evolution(change) spurts. All kinds of new species seem to emerge. This is almost spooky. I would think this would be the best prof that there is a connection between some force of chance and direction towards a ever changing goal. Survival happen because it works.
jcrawford wrote:

That's easy. Scientists close their minds to the possibility of any greater intelligence in the universe that their own. Therefore, not only are scientists "close-minded," but they are narrow-minded and bigoted (by definition) as well.

That is so backwards. I would think they would be most open. Many do consider a greater intelligence in the universe then their own. They just do not see the stories in the bible as the way it happened. The evidence is not there. The stories have different meanings and they are not science or taken literally.

jcrawford wrote:

As you say, "God for them is beyond the creation stories of the Old Testament, and God's creation is more to them than what is told in the OT." Sounds to me like they have closed their minds to what God says about His creation in the OT and subscribe to some sort of 'new age' god of their own 'scientific' imagination and invention.

They have not closed their minds as you have. Unlike you they have opened their minds to more and a deeper understanding.
You equate stories in the bible with God's word. How is it he has lunch with Abraham and later He is described as Spirit and know one can see him and live. There is even evolution in the bible. The stories about God change as humans changed. Had they not they would have gone the way of many other more ancient stories that now and then we recover from rubble.

[micatala]

That's easy. Scientists close their minds to the possibility of any greater intelligence in the universe that their own. Therefore, not only are scientists "close-minded," but they are narrow-minded and bigoted (by definition) as well.

Some do, but certainly not all. Einstein, for instance, thought of his work as discovering some small part of the mind of God.

Even if a scientist is 'close-minded' with respect to the existence of God, it does not follow that he or she is also close-minded with respect to science or scientific evidence.

At any rate, this seems to be a bit off-topic. The general question is how to decide where to draw 'the line' between human and non-human fossils.

Sounds to me like they have closed their minds to what God says about His creation in the OT and subscribe to some sort of 'new age' god of their own 'scientific' imagination and invention.

I don't think it is close-minded to consider all the evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, and reach a reasoned conclusion on the status of the OT vis-a-vis evolution in particular, or science in general. I think this is true of many who are Christian as well as non-Christians. Just because they have done their deliberations and reached a different conclusion than you does not mean they are close-minded. Why should they continually be asked to reconsider a long-settled issue when they have no real credible evidence suggesting they do so? If there were real credible evidence to indicate the Theory of Evolution is wrong, it would be considered.

[jcrawford]

Even if a scientist is 'close-minded' with respect to the existence of God, it does not follow that he or she is also close-minded with respect to science or scientific evidence.

At any rate, this seems to be a bit off-topic. The general question is how to decide where to draw 'the line' between human and non-human fossils.

Yes, we are getting off-topic. Here's a nice quote from Dean Falk in Lubenow's 1992 edition of Bones of Contention: "The evidence presented shows that KNM-ER 1805 should not be attributed to Homo ... the shape if the endocast from KNM-ER 1805 (basal view) is similar to that of an African pongid... "

KNM-ER 1805, 1813 and OH 62 are all Australopithicine ape fossils unless neo-Darwinists want to make the racial claim that 3 foot chimpanzees were the first species of human beings in Africa.

[micatala]

Here's a nice quote from Dean Falk in Lubenow's 1992 edition of Bones of Contention: "The evidence presented shows that KNM-ER 1805 should not be attributed to Homo ... the shape if the endocast from KNM-ER 1805 (basal view) is similar to that of an African pongid... "

KNM-ER 1805, 1813 and OH 62 are all Australopithicine ape fossils unless neo-Darwinists want to make the racial claim that 3 foot chimpanzees were the first species of human beings in Africa.

OK. You are including these three specimens on the non-human side. Is this based solely on height, or are there other considerations?

I would note that all the creationists listed in the initial post agree with this determination.

The same Smithsonian site on human origins you have cited has some information on KNM-ER 1813, indicating that there has been some debate about its classification. The skull is larger than the average for australopithecus, but not that much larger. The age is given as 1.9 million YA. The 1805 fossil is from about 1.74 MYA.

Here is some info on OH 62. Again, there do seem to be a lot of questions. The stature is small, as you say, and the limb proportions are more like austrolopithecus. The cranium seems to be larger.

The Smithsonian gives two alternate phylogenies, basically differing in whether homo habilis or homo rudolgensis is ancestral to homo ergaster. They also have a page on the homo habilis debate as they refer to it. The closing paragraph says

Another debate centered around Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis is whether or not these two species belong in the genus Homo or would be better suited in one of the other hominid genera. Some researchers feel that all species within the genus Homo should have characteristics, such as locomotor patterns, diet and body proportions, that make them more like modern humans than like the australopiths. These researchers feel that the characteristics of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are more ape-like than modern, a conclusion that would remove them from our genus. This would make Homo a monophyly (all species evolved from a common ancestor), rather than a polyphyly (the species evolved from more than one ancestor) as it is now thought to be. Other researchers think, however, that moving the two species out of the genus Homo does not solve the problem since the specimens do not easily fit into the genus Australopithecus as currently defined.

Note the last sentence. Here is some information on austrolopithecus afarensis. The palate is different than in modern humans, as are some of the skull features. There are 300 or so specimens from 3 to 4 MYA. It seems to me the fossil palate is differently shaped than that in OH 7 which is classified as homo habilis.

This site seems to have a lot of good information, although I haven't had time to go through it all yet.

So, for the sake of arguement, we could say that the 3 specimens you refer to are not homo habilis, but australopithecine. However, this conclusion is not without difficulties, as there are some differences, including cranial capacity and wrist morphology.

Australopithecus afarensis, most famously preserved in the the fossil skeleton of "Lucy", discovered by Johanson in the 1970s. Specimens range from 3.2 to 2.9 million years in age. The individuals are 1 to 1.2 meters tall, with a brain size of only 415 cubic centimeters and a generally ape-like face. Primitive characters include long arms, short legs, and curved finger and toe bones that imply the use of hands and feet in grasping branches. B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait have presented evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking (Nature 404 (23 Mar 2000): 382. However, A. afarensis is fully human in some significant ways, including hindlimbs and pelvis fully adapted for a type of bipedal locomotion.

So, going on up the line, if these 3 are not classified as homo, which are and why? In a sense, you have picked the easiest case first, as this is the one where all the creationists agree. We still haven't addressed why some creationists have different opinions on these.

[jcrawford]

Here's a nice quote from Dean Falk in Lubenow's 1992 edition of Bones of Contention: "The evidence presented shows that KNM-ER 1805 should not be attributed to Homo ... the shape if the endocast from KNM-ER 1805 (basal view) is similar to that of an African pongid... "

KNM-ER 1805, 1813 and OH 62 are all Australopithicine ape fossils unless neo-Darwinists want to make the racial claim that 3 foot chimpanzees were the first species of human beings in Africa.

OK. You are including these three specimens on the non-human side. Is this based solely on height, or are there other considerations?

No, since Bernard Wood suggests that none of the Homo habilis fossils represent human ancestors and may be more properly recognized as australopithecines. (Lubenow)

So, for the sake of arguement, we could say that the 3 specimens you refer to are not homo habilis, but australopithecine. However, this conclusion is not without difficulties, as there are some differences, including cranial capacity and wrist morphology.

I congratulate you on your scholarly research, observations and conclusions here micatala. It's nice to see that some posters dare investigate the facts for themselves rather than solely rely on repetitious evolutionist dogma and rhetoric. Cranial capacities are interesting since Lubenow documents that KNM-ER 1470 is 800 cc, well above the average of 615 cc for 8 Homo habilis skulls and 440 for A. africanus with Lucy type A. afarensis coming in last with a mere 413 cc.

So, going on up the line, if these 3 are not classified as homo, which are and why? In a sense, you have picked the easiest case first, as this is the one where all the creationists agree. We still haven't addressed why some creationists have different opinions on these.

Again, more good detailed research on your part, micatala, even though the Smithsonian Institute is nothing but a government agency and ministry for scientific propaganda and natural history. However, the question does not revolve around why creationists have different opinions about the human fossils but rather the problem of why neo-Darwinist evolutionists continue to insist that the first African people on earth originated from the ancestors of non-human African apes.

Why don't you see how racist such a theory is? Especially now that neo-Darwinists have concocted the African Eve Model of human evolution which simply contends that Asian and Europeon people are biological descendents of some beautiful African women whose descendents racially exterminated all early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe?

Do you have neo-Darwinist blinders on?

[McCulloch]

Being neither an expert auto mechanic or paleoanthropologist, I too rely and depend on the "experts" in these fields. That's why I appreciate Lubenow's scholarly 35 year study and assessment of the fossils of our human ancestors. He scientifically documents (over 1000 scientific notations, footnotes and references) what the paleoanthropologists have unearthed to date (specific details on 371 human fossils) and clearly demonstrates that neo-Darwinsts are at odds with themselves on how to account for the incredible diversity and racial variation within the human fossil record to date.

That result would be expected. Evolution implies changes which have taken place over a long period of time. Classification should be difficult.

How could you possibly acknowledge Lubenow's expertise when you haven't even read his book? What are you waiting for? Neo-Darwinists to give you the go-ahead? Of course they discredit him. Wouldn't you if he called your theories racist?

Normally I don't fork out for a book until I see a few positive reviews from people I trust. I have not seen anyone but jcrawford praise the alleged scholarship of Lubenow. Perhaps a few reviews and citations from acknowledged experts in the field would help to convince me to read his book. Some indication that he has been published in peer reviewed journals would help too.

My point was that if the creation scientists were correct, distinguishing between humans and other apes would be obvious and one would not expect such a diversity of opinion regarding the identification of these skulls.

Your "point" is well put and taken in view of the factual evidence that most neo-Darwinist theorists and their followers don't seem able to differentiate between the first African people on earth and some ancestral species of non-human African apes.

That difficulty should be expected if one evolved from the other. One would expect less difficulty if humans were the result of special creation and non-human apes were not.